Psychologists at Harvard University have developed a new method to study extrasensory perception that, they argue, can resolve the century-old debate over its existence. According to the authors, their study not only illustrates a new method for studying such phenomena, but also provides the strongest evidence yetobtained against the existence of extrasensory perception, or ESP.

Of course what was truly proven was that an assumption was false. That is that it was possible to detect ESP as defined by the study with neuroimaging. Far from being a 'new way to study ESP without the deficiencies of prior methods' it simply shows, in a limited study, that there may not be a close correlation in this specific case. As usual the outcome is easily coopted by anyone looking for 'academic studies' that 'disprove ESP'.
In fact the outcome is far more trivial, albeit interesting.

Anomalous Phenomena is Unexplained not ImpossiblePsi is Subtle not AbsoluteAnything is possible, it's all a matter of Probability---------------------

This proves nothing. The problem is that they guessed the 'targets' at 50% or chance level. So, they was no indication of Psi. I would like to see the same study with fMRI when the 'hit' rate on target guesses shows some positive evidence of Psi.

Other things to consider...what if fMRI is not capable of detecting the effect? What about the use of dynamic vs static targets?

Psychologists at Harvard University have developed a new method to study extrasensory perception that, they argue, can resolve the century-old debate over its existence. According to the authors, their study not only illustrates a new method for studying such phenomena, but also provides the strongest evidence yetobtained against the existence of extrasensory perception, or ESP.